On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 04:20, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 06:12:20PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 06:37:59PM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote: > > > All debian lists use spamassassin (and have for several months now). > > > > Apparently using a threshold too high, though. > > Rather, apparently using not-quite-good-enough rules. Improving rules is > better than lowering the threshold. > > -- > Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk] Agreed - I configured SpamAssassin three days ago, and I'm having about equal numbers of false positives and false negatives - especially where most of my daily emailed notices, which even though I've marked them as whitelisted addresses, seem to be cleared only when SpamAssassin fancies to look at either .spamassassin.cf or .spamassassin/user_prefs and there aren't too many other problems. I guess that I'll need to start writing and overriding some rules and thresholds, because some legitimate and whitelisted mailings (a daily horoscope in html) are getting very close to auto-report levels. -- Mark L. Kahnt, FLMI/M, ALHC, HIA, AIAA, ACS, MHP ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935 Email: kahnt@hosehead.dyndns.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part